Comment viewing options

But doesn't the student athlete get something? They give their commitment to the school in exchange for a scholarship. Yes, I understand that in a select few cases, the school hasn't upheld their end of the bargain, but that's really not the norm. It's not like schools are signing a bunch of LOIs and then only taking the guys they want.

If the argument is "There is a harsher punishment when the player reneges than when the school/coach does" then I agree with you, but I don't think the solution is to allow any player out of their LOI, otherwise what is the point?

It is that there is no punishment at all when schools renege on NLIs. Schools are free to do as they please, to accept a player and honor their promise to offer him a scholarship months after he signed a contract that he and most other players think guarantee them something. It is a completely one-sided agreement that strips a mass of individuals of rights while providing no guarantee in return.

Sure, 99% of NLI's end in a player getting a scholarship, but it's that 1% that is extremely troubling. FIxing the system and giving recruits more rights and benefits isn't going to have an adverse effect on the 99%, but it will be a more fair system to the 1%.

Also, the solution isn't to allow any player out of their NLI. It is to make it so if a school accepts a player's NLI then that school will honor its end of the bargain and offer a scholarship. That won't help players like Vanderdoes, but it will at least make the NLI more of a two-way agreement and less a fancy way to strip potential college athletes of a lot of rights while not guaranteeing anything in return.

Would be pretty cool to see a player like Peppers or Hand or another blue chip player leverage their demand by refusing to sign a LOI. Once one does it, a bunc would follow suit. I would just hope that those who do it, do with with the right intent, to keep their rights. But I could see it snowballing into boosters giving kids stuff to get them transfer.